After The Tariffs Meltdown, Supreme Court Justices Try Jokes Instead
Above the Law
by Kathryn RubinoFebruary 25, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
The Supreme Court recently injected some much-needed humor into its typically tense oral arguments during the Enbridge Energy v. Nessel case, marking a shift from the intense sniping that defined their lengthy 170-page tariffs decision. Justice Samuel Alito led the lighthearted moment by making a self-deprecating joke about the Court’s tendency for lengthy opinions, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivering the punchline. This rare display of humor highlighted the justices’ awareness of the judiciary’s exhausting maximalism and the public’s growing expectation for more concise rulings.
The moment came during a broader effort by the Court to lighten its tone after the contentious tariffs case. Alito’s remark, “That’s certainly a goal to aim for,” was met with laughter, signaling a brief departure from the usual dynamic of public feuding among justices. This self-awareness is particularly notable given the Court’s recent history of lengthy and often combative opinions.
The humor also reflected an implicit acknowledgment of the challenges faced by legal professionals and readers who grapple with the complexity and length of judicial decisions. By cracking jokes about their own output, the justices hinted at a desire for more streamlined and accessible rulings in the future.
This shift toward levity is significant in the context of the Court’s efforts to rebuild public trust and improve its image. While such moments remain rare, they offer hope that the judiciary may be moving toward a more balanced approach—one that recognizes both the importance of its work and the need for greater clarity and brevity. As Justice Alito humorously put it, aiming for concise opinions is “certainly a goal to aim for.”
Verticals
legalnews
Originally published on Above the Law on 2/25/2026